Skip to main content

It's not accurate to say that someone 'lost' their battle with cancer



Whenever I see a well known person or celebrity who died of cancer the common text surrounding the death will usually include sentences such as ‘they lost their battle with cancer.’

I’ve had family members pass away from this disease but I know that I am not alone. Around 1 in 3 people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives.

My issue with the phrase is that cancer is not a battle one can control. By categorising a cancer death with ‘losing the battle’ implies that there is an element of control by the person suffering from the disease.

The success rate will depend on the stage of cancer, how far it has spread and how aggressive the cancer is. Even after a cancer battle is ‘won’ (meaning remission) it is still an on going burden. Cancer treatment today involves chemotherapy but the important thing to remember is that chemotherapy is not a cure. It is a treatment. That individual will still need to monitor their cancer for years to come.

My father got cancer at the age of 35. Prior to this he was a healthy athletic 6’4 man.  It was non hodgkins lymphoma (the same type of cancer that claimed the life of Jackie Onassis). By the time he felt symptoms and went to see a doctor, they discovered that the cancer was aggressive and had spread. Six weeks later he died. That was all it took. This was not a winnable battle for him and something that was not in his control.

Image result for jackie onassis
 
Cancer does not discriminate. The old, the young and the healthy are susceptible to this disease.

Once a person gets cancer their fate may already be decided. It is not an outcome anyone will be able to control. It is not their fault. They did not ‘lose the battle’ if the battle was never winnable to begin with. 

Thank you for reading xx

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We won't achieve Gender Equality until Ardern's situation is viewed as normal.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern discovered she was pregnant only six days away from being announced as Prime Minister on 19 October 2017. At first she and partner Clarke Gayford chose to keep it quiet but since announcing her pregnancy the 37 year old has received a mixed response with some feeling 'betrayed' by the announcement, accusing her of being 'selfish' for putting her needs before her country and that she chose to have her baby at the wrong time and should have 'waited' until she wasn't prime minister. Others have suggested that due to the pregnancy she will not be 'fit for purpose' and cannot possibly handle being prime minister as well as being pregnant. Mainly because you know....'baby brain?' There has also been concern around the amount of time she will take for maternity leave. Ardern has stated that she is going to take six weeks off and that her partner Gayford will look after the baby. Ardern's situat...

Freedom of Speech is Un-Australian...literally

The NSW Government passed a bill which seeks to enable 'safe access zones' for women visiting abortion clinics. The bill will mean that pro life protesters cannot harass women entering these clinics (at least within a 150m radius). This is a small victory for women who choose to access these services. What is surprising about the bill being passed was the lack of support from the NSW Minister for Women - Tanya Davies. Davies cited her reason behind the her decision was to give  protesters the opportunity to 'give information' to these women. That reasoning is unsatisfactory, for instance, if Davies is concerned about the 'information' that women need to have regarding abortions then she is misinformed about the actual procedure of abortion in NSW. The current procedure for women who choose to abort consists of counselling prior to making that final decision. At that counselling session they would be adequately informed of all their options. Therefore the ...